Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Political Preference for Talking Points, Not Facts

"A preference for talking points, and a lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.

Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.

The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared to how often Americans use such advanced medications.

But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. They have no interest in the reality that medical care has much less effect on death rates from homicide, obesity, and narcotics addiction than it has on death rates from cancer or other conditions that doctors can do something about. Americans survive various cancers better than people anywhere else. Americans also get to see doctors much sooner for medical treatment in general."

I cannot believe you are that road. First off, aside from longevity there are tons of metrics available on quality of life, that make the U.S. system look terrible (or at the very least not very good).

Of course no system is perfect, and the universal care system has many many flaws, but those in glass house (I presume from your tone that you believe the U.S. system is far superior to what is available elsewhere) should take care of looking at the whole picture. Yes there are waiting time for many ailments in Canada, yes it can be difficult to find a primary care physician. But outcome (beyond just length of life) if far superior on Canada than in the U.S. for the vast majority of ailments, but of course not all.

Moreover, it is done at a fraction of the cost that America incurs for its health care system.

Let me be clear, to preach the Canadian solution for America is ludicrous, there are too many interested parties that will seek to maintain the status quo -- they gain too much from this state of affair.

Finally, and as a demonstration that the Canadian system has massive flaws, although we start from a lower base, medical inflation is just as bad in Canada as it is in the U.S. and far exceeds GDP growth -- it is also on an unsustainable path!

"there are tons of metrics available on quality of life"Don't you mean "standard of living"? How does one objectively measure "quality of life"? Are you saying the standard of living in the US is "terrible"? I think you can argue some find the "quality of life" better in countries other than the US, personally I haven't, but to say there are metrics that support this is ridiculous. Opinion polls maybe, not metrics.

All of them, I guess. Mass is well-known for the quality of its healthcare.

You guess? This would be a first. Everywhere else this has been tried, huge wait lists developed and health care became largely inaccessible to those who are not wealthy enough to pay to jump the queue or who don't have the political connections (i.e., the vast majority of the population).

Do not respond to the siren call of "health insurance". Insurance is not health care.

We, basically, provide healthcare to Everyone in the U.S. as it is. However, the "Emergency Room" system is very inefficient.

It causes bad situations to "fester" until they become "True Emergency" cases, and Then treats them. This, almost always, leads to a more Expensive, and less desirable, result.

A lot of what happens in a system such as Massachusett's is, although costs get shifted around some, they're still borne by the same people that were bearing them in the first place, and the increase turns out not to be as much as at first expected.

For instance, while your taxes may go up a bit, the value of the healthcare stocks in your 401-K should increase, also.

Overall, it's unlikely the average citizen will notice much difference in their general situation.

RE: "Moreover, it is done at a fraction of the cost that America incurs for its health care system."

This is FALSE.

50% of american health care costs go to the kind of heath care that Canada RATIONS.

It is not that it is cheaper. it's that IT"S NOT DONE AT ALL.

The canadian health care system is disgusting by american standards. As someone who has survived two battles with cancer, and who has experience with both systems, there is NOTHING like the american system anywhere.

THe only weakness in the american system is that we allow people to go bankrupt covering their critical care. That is the only medical coverage that needs fixing.

'The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 56% of physicians are not taking on new patients. Wait times for appointments are climbing. Just two years after reform took root, one clinic in Western Massachusetts had amassed a waiting list of 1,600 patients.

RomneyCare expanded coverage simply by putting more people on the dole. Since 2006, 440,000 people have been added to state-funded insurance rolls. Medicaid enrollment alone is up nearly 25%, and Massachusetts is struggling to cover the cost.

Of the previously uninsured individuals who have signed up, 68% are receiving free or subsidized coverage'...

As someone who has survived two battles with cancer, and who has experience with both systems, there is NOTHING like the american system anywhere.

As someone who was gravely ill for several years and who also has experienced the systems in the U.S. as well as Western and Eastern Europe and whose family has experienced what passes for health care in Canada, I agree 100% with this part of Curt's post.

THe only weakness in the american system is that we allow people to go bankrupt covering their critical care. That is the only medical coverage that needs fixing.

This is a thorny issue. We could solve it the way Singapore does, or we could solve it the way Canada and Western European countries don't. Since the Singapore way involves less power for the politicians, guess which option the U.S. chose?

Of course, since there is no free lunch, this problem is not completely solvable. It is a fallacy that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.

No meds are needed by me. I can see that the biggest thread to your individual liberty comes from your own government. Given that your government is dominated by the two main political parties it is clear that they are the problem. The fact that you can't see that suggests that it is you who is need of something.

Yeah, but something like 50% of Doctors weren't taking "new" patients before the plan went into effect. And, wait times are up, but, not by a lot. As I stated earlier, about 6 days for Non-Urgent care.

And, of course the Medicaid rolls are up; the vast majority of those that didn't have insurance were poor, but not eligible for Medicaid as it stood before reform.

Again, the healthcare law increased the Massachusetts state budget 1%. I'm sure they saved some money on reimbursements to hospitals for treating certain low-income people in their emergency rooms.

This subject is easy to demagogue, but, in Massachusett's case, anyway, it hasn't been particularly expensive.

The companies have gone to court to challenge the state's action -- it apparently had no basis for its ruling beyond the political needs of Gov. Deval Patrick. If they win, Bay State health premiums will continue their rapid rise; if they lose, they'll eventually have to stop doing business in Massachusetts -- and the state will be that much closer to a "single payer" system of socialized medicine.

The future of US medicine under ObamaCare is already on display in Massachusetts. The top four health insurers there just posted first-quarter losses of more than $150 million. Most of them blamed the state's decision to keep premiums at last year's levels for individual and small-business policies, when they'd proposed double-digit hikes to match the soaring costs they've seen under the state's universal-coverage law.

The Massachusetts "health reform" disease means more than just bureaucrats setting prices. It also includes rising government spending and taxes; politicians demonizing doctors, hospitals and insurers -- and patients getting lectured that the restrictions of managed care are good medicine.

The state’s ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price for patients: Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ...

My impression is they're saying, "Okay, we're going to make you eligible for Medicaid, but, instead of going to Boston General, and getting Nexium, we want you to go to your local, less-expensive hospital/clinic, and get Omeprazole."

In the end, I haven't read where anybody's level of care went down; only that the poor, and sick became eligible for "care."

Juandos, I'm sorry, I thought that was covered in the link I gave. I realize, now, that it wasn't. I have to run out, now, and do some "honey-do's," so I won't be able to go find it.

I remember, a few months ago, when I read the first article on this poll that it included those numbers. I was struck that, although wait times had increased a bit, they hadn't increased bery much, and the same applied to Doctors taking new patients.

Quote from Frozen in the North: "Moreover, it is done at a fraction of the cost that America incurs for its health care system."

And here you find the base flaw in the whole process of a government system. There are no true monetary prices. "Costs" in a government system (which in an actual economy, are just prices of factors) are arbitrary and ficticious. They have nothing to do with market demand and can no more be used to measure productivity or effectiveness than any other made up number.

These inherent flaws in socialism were pointed out and recognized 90 years ago, but just like the fantasies of Keynes, these fictions are far to valuable to political power (i.e., coercive force) to abandon due to auch flimsy things as facts and logic.

The bombings of Serbian civilians, the support of Mugabe, the embargo that killed the 500K Iraqi children, the WMD lies, the ATF actions at Waco, the Ruby Ridge killings, the support of Saudi and Yemeni oppressive regimes, the DHS wire tapping, the false charges and the refusal to grant habeas corpus rights to individuals, the TSA gropings, the rendition flights, etc., etc., etc. What else do you need to show that the two parties are ati-liberty?

Everybody picks their own facts. Great Britain spends about 8 percent of its GDP on healthcare, and the USA is double that, and soaring.

True. But in UK you have patients being starved to death due to lack of care. There is rationing and little in the way of responsibility. The rich use private doctors in London or go to places like Singapore or New York for better care.

The bombings of Serbian civilians - (Liar, Serbian civilians were never targeted by NATO, and the bombings were done at the request for support from the Europeans in a effort to prevent a genocide) -the support of Mugabe - ( the U.S. never supported Mugabe, it supported a return to a democratic process. ) - the embargo that killed the 500K Iraqi children - ( this was a U.N. embargo. Is everything that the U.N. does now the fault of the U.S. as well?) - the WMD lies - (I provided you with a link to a story outlining the findings of a report of the investigation into this matter which concluded that no one lied about the intelligence with regard to WMD) - the ATF actions at Waco, the Ruby Ridge killings - ( these actions were inexcusable but hardly make the case that both parties are anti-liberty) - the support of Saudi and Yemeni oppressive regimes - ( As opposed to what? Is there some movement in either of these countries waiting to turn them into Jeffersonian democracies? We live in the real world where oil is the lifeblood of the world economy. Grow up.) - the DHS wire tapping - (Approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court) - the false charges and the refusal to grant habeas corpus rights to individuals - (Bullshit. Never happened) - the TSA gropings, the rendition flights, etc., etc., etc. - blah, blah, blah.

What else do you need to show that the two parties are ati-liberty?

Your comments are all I need to know that you are a moral degenerate who cannot see the difference between good and evil. You live in a world of fantasy and delusion. In the real world liberty's advance is sometimes messy and uneven but good men press on anyway.

No i means "quality of life" It is not meant as a "how rich you are", rather if you become sick, who does the treatment support your quality of life, (ability to live a normal life, pain etc etc). In public health it is a common term for discussing medical outcome.

Where are we getting these GDP percentages from? What does it mean when you say "the US spends 17% of GDP" on "health care'? What does that cover? It seems peculiar to me to say such a thing. Its like say...the US spends 25% of its GDP on food. What does this cover?

Second, is it not possible that a population of 300+ million people living in climactic conditions ranging from deserts to tundra, comprised of multiple ethnic backgrounds and races, with dietary habits that are a cross section of the entire world (and lets not even talk about drug use)...MIGHT...just might, have very different health patterns than a heterogeneous 30 million population of Canucks? Maybe?

Are we going to throw common sense away and assume that people are the same everywhere?

Likewise, Greece has socialized medicine, as do most countries in the world. Why do I not hear proponents of socialized medicine take Greece as an example of model health care? Or Russia? Or any other country other than Canada and UK?

Medical care provided by the state or private enterprise has the exact same costs. Hospital have to be built, doctors paid. A dollar spent is a dollar spent. In Canada its about 10% of GDP (high compared to France and Germany), and its about 18% in the U.S. (highest in the world).

Canadians don't give a rat's ass about American health care. The only reason Canada, the UK are used most often is that they speak English. Most studies in fact also look at Germany, France and Japan. Greece is a disaster where patient pay the doctors (under the table) to get treatment. Not a model anyone wants to replicate. My guess is that once you include large population systems, you get a fair representation of the solutions used in each country. BTW medical costs as a percentage of GDP is around 4% in Japan.

Finally, population of 70 million in the UK, and France, and 90 million in Germany should give a good idea of what could be achieved in America. In fact, 30 million is more complicated because we have smaller population basin. So generally costs should be higher per capita.

Japan's health minister has pledged to address the shortage of doctors in the country after a woman in labour was turned away by eight hospitals. A ninth hospital refused to admit her even after she miscarried in an ambulance and her baby died. The woman, who was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, lived just three minutes away from a hospital. But she was forced to travel 70km (45 miles) by ambulance looking for a facility that would admit her.

Last year a pregnant woman who lived in the same area died after she was refused admission by about 20 hospitals which said their beds were full. The problem is there are neither enough doctors in Japan, nor emergency facilities.

... the uninsured generally have more health risks than the rest of the population. They are poorer, more likely to smoke, less educated, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be obese, and so forth. All these things are known to increase your risk of dying, independent of your insurance status.

The studies relied upon by the Institute of Medicine and the Urban Institute tried to control for some of these factors. But Sorlie et al.—the larger study—lacked data on things like smoking habits and could control for only a few factors, while Franks, Clancy, and Gold, which had better controls but a smaller sample, could not, as an observational study, categorically exclude the possibility that lack of insurance has no effect on mortality at all.

The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.

This result is not, perhaps, as shocking as it seems. Health care heals, but it also kills.

Most studies compare these countries on the bases of some indexes which may, or may not, be representative of the quality of health care; ie things like life expectancy etc are pretty meaningless in this context. If you want to compare, say, cancer treatments in individual countries, than compare them on the bases of survival and years added while taking into account incidence rates, or whatever other relevant metric.

"Greece is a disaster where patient pay the doctors (under the table) to get treatment. Not a model anyone wants to replicate. "

Oh! So now its a model no one wants to replicate. Considering that Greece has a higher life expectancy than the US!, and is ranked a full 23 countries ahead of the US by WHO!

WHY would we not want to emulate the Greek system? What about the Italian? Its ranked 2nd in the world by WHO!

So your argument is, lets look only at those countries which are likely to give better results than the US based on some aggregate indexes which have little if anything to do with marginal increases or decreases in "health care quality", while ignoring population factors? Lets also come up with a fictitious "% of GDP" expenditure for providing said fictitious health care tied to those indexes.

As an American, I go to Thailand for my health care. So there is anecdote, and what does it mean?

I found Thai health care to be as good if not better than what I had access to in Canada. It certainly was much faster. One of my friends used to fly each year from his home in the Seychelles to Singapore or Bangkok for his medical services even though he could have gotten Canadian care for free. It was easier pay a bit than to wait for weeks in Toronto.

I am sure there are anecdotes--but facts are facts. Great Britain spends half what we do on health care, and gets roughly the same results.

But they don't. Public UK health care is much slower and of much lower quality. It would be much more expensive if the trial lawyers could force the same type of defensive medicine as in the US and if they could drive insurance premiums to the same levels. Or if drug costs were at the same level as in the US.

To do a proper assessment you have to do an apple to apple comparison and that is not being done.

"Considering that Greece has a higher life expectancy than the US!, and is ranked a full 23 countries ahead of the US by WHO!"

The WHO rankings are nonsense. Just one example, a large component of their evaluations are based on "financial fairness," a variable that favors more socialist systems but has nothing to do with the actual quality of care provided.

The bombings of Serbian civilians - (Liar, Serbian civilians were never targeted by NATO, and the bombings were done at the request for support from the Europeans in a effort to prevent a genocide) -

Of course they were. The US bombed bridges and residential neighborhoods. And the Serbians were not the only bad guys in the conflict. The Croatians and Muslim extremists did their own bit of killing of innocents as well but their crimes were ignored.

the support of Mugabe - ( the U.S. never supported Mugabe, it supported a return to a democratic process.

Sorry, I meant Mubarak. The US certainly has not supported the democratic process in Egypt. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Yemen.

- the embargo that killed the 500K Iraqi children - ( this was a U.N. embargo. Is everything that the U.N. does now the fault of the U.S. as well?)

Nonsense. The embargo was pushed on the UN by the US and could have been ended by the US once the extent of the damage became better known. But the US never did anything other than applaud the deaths of 500K children.

- the WMD lies - (I provided you with a link to a story outlining the findings of a report of the investigation into this matter which concluded that no one lied about the intelligence with regard to WMD)

Of course they lied. The administration cherry picked analyst reports and downplayed the doubts to spin a story for the UN and for Congress. Cheney found patsies in Bush and Powell and had his team spin a tall tale about nonexistent WMDs. When Wilson blew the whistle on one of the lies Cheney had his man leak that his wife was a CIA agent and probably got some of her contacts killed. Bush and Cheney should have been hung for treason.

We are now looking at trillions spent just because the Republican President and his Administration lied the country to an unnecessary war. Instead of taking proper actions the Democratic fool who followed Bush has made things even worse.

- the ATF actions at Waco, the Ruby Ridge killings - ( these actions were inexcusable but hardly make the case that both parties are anti-liberty) -

Those were primarily directed by the Democratic party but it does not change the fact that Republicans are just as much against liberty as the Democrats. Look at the Federal Register to see how Bush grew the size of government and trampled on individual liberty.

It is not that simple. Comparing a population that is fairly homogeneous and has pretty good eating habits to a heterogeneous population where obesity and drug abuse, gun violence, are very common does not make sense. If you adjust for all the factors Japan does not come out very far ahead if at all. And I am not sure about you but a country that claims tens of thousands of centenarians who only exist on paper thanks to SS fraud does not give me much confidence in some of the longevity data.

"Of course they were. The US bombed bridges and residential neighborhoods."

Again with this idiocy! You're a like a brick. I've already covered this with you before, and you still can't comprehend anything. Even by Serbian standards, about 500 civilians died from NATO attacks, which after 3 months of bombing and some 38,000 combat missions...makes this cleanest war in human history.

You're just a total loser. Even in THIS conversation, all you want to do is attack the US with idiotic comments which are not only unrelated to anything, but are factually wrong and made up.

ACCESS TO PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANSAccess to primary care physicians is becoming more restricted, as more than half of primary care practices – 51% of internists and 53% of family physicians – are not accepting new patients. These figures remain close to those of last year’s survey which showed 49% of internists and 54% of family physicians not accepting new patients.

Medical Society officials say the percentage of practices closed to new patients reflects the persistent shortages of primary care physicians in the Commonwealth. For five consecutive years, the Medical Society has recorded critical and severe shortages of both internists and family physicians.

WAIT TIMES FOR NEW PATIENTSPrimary Care Long wait times continue for the primary care physicians of internal medicine and family medicine who are accepting new patients. The average wait time for an appointment for internal medicine is 48 days, five days shorter than last year, and the average wait time for family medicine is 36 days, up 7 days. Internal medicine was the only specialty reporting a shorter wait time, yet at 48 days it has the longest wait time of any of the seven specialties surveyed.

I know. That's the point I was trying to make. They use Canada and UK as examples all the time, but never Greece. Why not? Its supposedly paradise, by those metrics which supposedly make the Canadian system so much better then ours.

While reading a link provided here by someone, from a Canadian explaining the "myths" of the Canadian health care system, the writer mentioned that "here in Canada we get so much more bang for our buck. We get free education bla bla bla."

Which brings up the question, how many US students go to Canada for their higher education? How many Canadians come to the US for their higher education? The answer is pretty obvious.

I'm not sure why some are comparing the enacted U.S. healthcare system with other nations, such as Canada and England. There is a lot to complain about with other systems. But from my personal standpoint, I have very little to complain about our future in healthcare.

For me, it hardly changes much at all. I've been with Kaiser Permanente for over 40 years and will remain there. Our system is still based on private insitutitons and for most U.S. citizens, their present situation should not change much.

I think it could result in a more expensive cost structure, but not necessarily prohibitively so. I suspect the good outweighs the bad. Necessary changes can be made later, if necessary. Of course, that's not taking Congress into account.

Quote from Frozen in the North: "Medical care provided by the state or private enterprise has the exact same costs."

You could not be more wrong. Private enterprise must make a profit, while the state does not and makes up the wasted difference at the point of a gun. This is the lesson that socialists never seem to be able to learn.

The WHO rankings are nonsense. Just one example, a large component of their evaluations are based on "financial fairness," a variable that favors more socialist systems but has nothing to do with the actual quality of care provided.

Correct. The rankings is based on how Nordic a country happens to be and has nothing to do with reality.

"Of course they were. The US bombed bridges and residential neighborhoods."

Again with this idiocy! You're a like a brick. I've already covered this with you before, and you still can't comprehend anything. Even by Serbian standards, about 500 civilians died from NATO attacks, which after 3 months of bombing and some 38,000 combat missions...makes this cleanest war in human history.

Applaud? Where the hell is the link for that??? These kind of repulsive, incredibly obvious lies routinely come from Vangel. No need to waste alot of time with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

Did I miss the outrage? The call to have her hung for crimes against humanity? Hell no, none of you morally bankrupt idiots had the courage to stand up for what was right and cheered Clinton and his policies.

No he didn't you twit! You are incredibly annoying, mostly because you have the intelligence of a 3 year old. No matter how much reality slaps you in the face, you just say "nu-uh!!" and keep repeating. It may surprise you, twit, that some of us were alive back then, and some us (me) were in the Balkans back then.

"Your French allies agreed with me. As did the libertarians. Human Rights Watch also agreed. I could go on but your apologies for murder do not require much more time to be wasted"

Again, you're a twit. Your arguments are like those of a 3 year old. Now go away and go listen to some Lew Rockwell to put you to sleep.

"Medical care provided by the state or private enterprise has the exact same costs"

Ha! That's priceless.

Again, I still await a reply as to why we don't instead compare our health care system with that of Greece. It is undoubtedly several times cheaper, and several times better than that of the US, according to all the statistics and indexes of WHO.

If we're going to do a comparison, I refuse to compare with some third-rate country like Canada, which ranks a full 16 countries below the shining gem that is Greece!

No he didn't you twit! You are incredibly annoying, mostly because you have the intelligence of a 3 year old. No matter how much reality slaps you in the face, you just say "nu-uh!!" and keep repeating. It may surprise you, twit, that some of us were alive back then, and some us (me) were in the Balkans back then.

He bombed civilian areas from 15,000 feet because the military was too scared to take risks and wanted its murder to be of low risk. Civilians died. As I pointed out, Human Rights Watch and other governments pointed out that it was illegal to bomb civilians knowingly but they were ignored. And by the way, Clinton backed Muslim extremists who are enemies of the United States. He should have gone after the KLA but instead of doing that he made sure that they got EU passports, weapons, and money.

Again, you're a twit. Your arguments are like those of a 3 year old. Now go away and go listen to some Lew Rockwell to put you to sleep.

Like I said, Clinton killed innocent civilians so that he could help the KLA. And Rockwell has a point. The US is very hypocritical. It cheered as Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia. When Russia helped to repel the Georgians Bush whined that it had invaded a sovereign country, forgetting that under Clinton the United States bombed and invaded Serbia to force it to give up its province, Kosovo. When comparing claims it is clear that Serbia had a greater historic claim to Kosovo than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer to be allied to Moscow than ruled by Tbilisi.

And as Pat Buchanan pointed out, the Western hypocrisy was astounding. The US cheered when the Soviet Union broke up into more than a dozen nations. The US celebrated when Yugoslavia broke up and Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo moved away from Serbia. But when two Georgian provinces, whose populations are ethnically not Georgians fought for their independence the US cried foul and supported the tyrant that wanted to rule them.

These are all facts. They cannot be disputed. And everyone who is not blind can see what is going on. Calling them names when they lift the mirror and help you see the hypocrisy only avoids dealing with the truth.

Let's try this once again, the U.S. got involved in Serbia at the request of numerous European countries who argued that Kosovo was becoming a blood bath with the potential for genocide. The U.S., as a leading member of NATO, felt obligated to come to the assistance of it's fellow member nations. Yet somehow you never mention the other nations involved. What you say about Serbia's claim to Kosovo may be true, but it is irrelevant. It became irrelevant when they decided to exercise that claim by executing unarmed combatants en mass and raping muslim women and girls by the thousands. I'll say it once more - you are a liar - NATO never deliberately targeted Serbian civilians.

Yes, we cheered when the Soviet Union - the most brutal tyranny of the 20th century - broke up. The fact that you find in this a reason to condemn us only serves to reinforce my point that you are a moral degenerate incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. And why should we condemn the Georgians for seeking political autonomy from a country which is still in many ways unreformed? A country which still supports anti-western regimes and tramples on the rights of it's own citizens?

The world is full of unimaginable evil, yet you never mention any of it unless you can twist the telling into a condemnation of the U.S.. The U.S. isn't perfect, but it has been the greatest force for human liberty in the history of the planet. Millions of Americans have selflessly given their lives and suffered grievous wounds in order that others may have a chance to live their lives in freedom and with dignity, and they have done it while dirt bags, like you, have heckled them from the safety of the societies whose freedom and security they have made possible.

I cant watch that link here, but I'm guessing it's in reference to Madeline Albright's stupid remark about the deaths of Iraqis being "worth it?" Yeah, stupid, callous remark from an idiot about a very lose-lose situation. That said, her remark is a very far cry from your indictment of the entire US govt for "applauding" the deaths of children. Your remarks are so over-the-top, your analysis is so shallow, it really destroys any respect I had for you on other issues where I thought you might actually know something.

"Hell no, none of you morally bankrupt idiots had the courage to stand up for what was right and cheered Clinton and his policies."

I love how you think you know us all from your perch on the sidelines in US protected Canada. I despised Clinton, but what "was right?" Just drop the sanctions and let Saddam out of his cage where he could rebuild his doomsday weapons and continue to threaten the world, invade his neighbors? It doesn't make you morally superior because you call for doing nothing while the US does most of the world's heavy lifting. It just makes you a parasite.

Let's try this once again, the U.S. got involved in Serbia at the request of numerous European countries who argued that Kosovo was becoming a blood bath with the potential for genocide.

A few points. One is Constitution. It says that the UN or EU do not send US troops to other countries, and neither do presidents. It is the job of Congress to declare war and commit troops. It was not Congress that decided to bomb Serbia but Clinton. Then there is the inconsistency. Clinton ignored what was obvious a genocide in Rwanda so let us cut the caring leader crap. He sat aside as did NATO while more than 800,000 died. Instead, Clinton and NATO chose to meddle in a civil war in which both sides were killing the others.

The U.S., as a leading member of NATO, felt obligated to come to the assistance of it's fellow member nations.

You may have missed this but the USSR fell apart. There is no need for NATO any longer. No NATO nation was being attacked by Serbia and NATO chose to pick sides in a civil war.

Yet somehow you never mention the other nations involved.

It does not matter. The buck stops with Congress and the Oval Office.

What you say about Serbia's claim to Kosovo may be true, but it is irrelevant. It became irrelevant when they decided to exercise that claim by executing unarmed combatants en mass and raping muslim women and girls by the thousands. I'll say it once more - you are a liar - NATO never deliberately targeted Serbian civilians.

First of all, most of the claims were discredited. When the conflict ended there were hundreds of forensic specialists going all over the mine that the Serbs were supposedly throwing their victims in. There were no bodies. Some of the rape claims came from women who were in the UK at the time that they were supposedly molested.

Let me note that I do not claim that the bastards who were in the Serb leadership were saints. They were murderers just like the leaders of the NATO nations, including the US. I am only saying that during the civil war all of the sides did their part in killing civilians.

And yes, when you bomb civilian areas from 20,000 feet you are targeting civilians. That is why so many civilians died. There is no way for you to justify murder, which is exactly what you are doing when you allow idiots like Clinton and Major to bomb civilians.

Yes, we cheered when the Soviet Union - the most brutal tyranny of the 20th century - broke up. The fact that you find in this a reason to condemn us only serves to reinforce my point that you are a moral degenerate incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. And why should we condemn the Georgians for seeking political autonomy from a country which is still in many ways unreformed? A country which still supports anti-western regimes and tramples on the rights of it's own citizens?

Your hypocrisy is showing. You either believe in self determination or you don't. If you cheer Kosovo leaving Serbia, which had a historical claim on it, then you should do the same when Abkhazia or South Ossetia decided to leave Georgia.

The world is full of unimaginable evil, yet you never mention any of it unless you can twist the telling into a condemnation of the U.S.. The U.S. isn't perfect, but it has been the greatest force for human liberty in the history of the planet. Millions of Americans have selflessly given their lives and suffered grievous wounds in order that others may have a chance to live their lives in freedom and with dignity, and they have done it while dirt bags, like you, have heckled them from the safety of the societies whose freedom and security they have made possible.

The world is full of evil. To see it at work look at any of the many capitals, including your own. The US used to be the best nation in the world and a beacon of liberty. It no longer is.

hat said, her remark is a very far cry from your indictment of the entire US govt for "applauding" the deaths of children. Your remarks are so over-the-top, your analysis is so shallow, it really destroys any respect I had for you on other issues where I thought you might actually know something.

Other than a few libertarians where exactly was the outrage? My remarks are appropriate. Most Americans do not really care about truth or justice and do not really have a problem with electing evil and corrupt politicians to rule over them. It may not be pleasant for you to be reminded of this but that is the way it is.

I love how you think you know us all from your perch on the sidelines in US protected Canada.

When? Canada does not usually meddle in the affairs of other nations and has no colonial ambitions. It has no real enemies that would take the trouble to cross one of two oceans to invade.

I despised Clinton, but what "was right?" Just drop the sanctions and let Saddam out of his cage where he could rebuild his doomsday weapons and continue to threaten the world, invade his neighbors? It doesn't make you morally superior because you call for doing nothing while the US does most of the world's heavy lifting. It just makes you a parasite.

Yes, it was right to stop killing children. The sanctions did not get Saddam out. And it is somewhat hypocritical to support Mubarak and other dictators while you oppose Saddam. What you need is consistency but that requires being faithful to principle.

Your remarks were that the US "applauded" the deaths of children. Nowhere have you proved this despicable charge. You're a liar, Vangel. Liar.

"The sanctions did not get Saddam out."

Yes, the war did it, with very little help from Canada. The sanctions did, however, impede his ability to invade his neighbors and rebuild his doomsday weapons. Besides, Saddam killled those children, not us.

"And it is somewhat hypocritical to support Mubarak and other dictators while you oppose Saddam."

No it isn't when the alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood. But you as a Canadian don't have to concern yourselves with such things because the US picks up the slack and the blowback for you.

Your remarks were that the US "applauded" the deaths of children. Nowhere have you proved this despicable charge. You're a liar, Vangel. Liar.

Take a look at the opinions about Clinton. Many see him as one of your best presidents over the past 50 years. Other than a few libertarians nobody seems to be bothered by the deaths of those 500K children, which is a crime that he should hang for along with most of the foreign leaders who backed him.

Now I will admit that Clinton was a much better president than Bush, particularly when it came to the size of government and individual liberty. But just like Bush he is a war criminal that should have been hung for his crimes.

Yes, the war did it, with very little help from Canada.

That is the one good thing that the Canadian government managed. Killing innocent civilians in Iraq would have made the politicians as bad as those in the Bush administration.

The sanctions did, however, impede his ability to invade his neighbors and rebuild his doomsday weapons. Besides, Saddam killled those children, not us.

No, it was the lack of medicine and food that killed those children. Richardson and Albright admitted that to the press. You might try doing a bit of reading.

No it isn't when the alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Come now. You are supporting al Qaeda in Libya. It is far worse than the Muslim Brotherhood. And isn't it hypocritical to pretend to support democracy while you oppose democracy in Egypt?

But you as a Canadian don't have to concern yourselves with such things because the US picks up the slack and the blowback for you.

Nonsense. The US has made the world much more dangerous for all Westerners, not just Canadians. It creates the blowback, not eliminate it.

"Take a look at the opinions about Clinton. Many see him as one of your best presidents over the past 50 years."

"Many." So what? What does that have to do with your statement that the US "applauded" the deaths of children? I repeat, you're a liar. For all your contempt for US politicans, your arguments as just as slippery and slimy.

Again, show me where anyone actually applauded the deaths of children, liar.

"Other than a few libertarians nobody seems to be bothered by the deaths of those 500K children.."

"Nobody." Again, just generalized blather. What did almighty Canada do about the children who died as a result of Saddam's actions? I guess "nobody" in morally superior Canada gave a shit.

"Killing innocent civilians in Iraq would have made the politicians as bad as those in the Bush administration."

Instead, you preferred to sit by while Saddam purposely killed innocent civilians. Bravo.

"No, it was the lack of medicine and food that killed those children."

Um, the Oil-for-Food scandal was orchestrated by Saddam. After the invasion, warehouses full of foreign food and medicine intended for those children were found. Look it up.

"You might try doing a bit of reading."

I love this coming from the guy who told me the only WMD program Saddam ever had was given to him by the US. You're the same expert who insisted the US gave Saddam tanks and loaded him up with automatic weapons.

"Come now. You are supporting al Qaeda in Libya."

I'm not. Neither is our idiotic President, as far as I can tell. He is waging a half-assed war against Khadaffy. He's not "supporting Al Qaeda;" only in your fevered, simplistic little binary world is that happening.

"And isn't it hypocritical to pretend to support democracy while you oppose democracy in Egypt?"

No, nobody opposes real democracy in Egypt. But the Islamists taking over have no interest in democracy. Democracy is more than "one man, one vote, one time." Is it really that difficult for you to understand? Go google "realpolitik" if you need further explanation.

"It creates the blowback, not eliminate it."

The inanity of your argument stems from the idea that you think blowback only occurs when you take action. Blowback also happens when you do nothing, as the deadbeat Canadians usually do.

So what? What does that have to do with your statement that the US "applauded" the deaths of children? I repeat, you're a liar. For all your contempt for US politicans, your arguments as just as slippery and slimy.

Fair enough. If you want me to say that Americans ignored the murder of 500K children that is fine. It is still the same thing. They allowed their leader to murder children and elected him with a landslide.

Again, just generalized blather. What did almighty Canada do about the children who died as a result of Saddam's actions? I guess "nobody" in morally superior Canada gave a shit.

Most Canadians did not care either. With a few exceptions on the left our politicians certainly did not. I have never claimed that the average Canadian is any more aware or more moral than the average American. Both fall very short of what would be required of free people who cared about justice.

Instead, you preferred to sit by while Saddam purposely killed innocent civilians. Bravo.

But it was Clinton who killed those 500K children, not Saddam. And there is nothing I can do about foreign politicians. That is for others to deal with. All I can do is tell my politicians to stop killing civilians and to stop supporting tyrants.

Um, the Oil-for-Food scandal was orchestrated by Saddam. After the invasion, warehouses full of foreign food and medicine intended for those children were found. Look it up.

You are confused. Your embargo stopped medicines from getting to children and made it easy for Saddam to control the distribution of resources that others could not get. It was the embargo that helped Saddam gain even more control and to punish his enemies by distributing the scarce resources to those that supported him.

I love this coming from the guy who told me the only WMD program Saddam ever had was given to him by the US. You're the same expert who insisted the US gave Saddam tanks and loaded him up with automatic weapons.

There were no WMDs. Bush lied. End of story and no amount of spin from warmongers and chicken hawks will change it.

I'm not. Neither is our idiotic President, as far as I can tell. He is waging a half-assed war against Khadaffy. He's not "supporting Al Qaeda;" only in your fevered, simplistic little binary world is that happening.

Some of your analysts claimed that al Qaeda was fighting to depose Gaddafi and to take over the oil producing areas. You might try doing some research.

No, nobody opposes real democracy in Egypt. But the Islamists taking over have no interest in democracy. Democracy is more than "one man, one vote, one time." Is it really that difficult for you to understand? Go google "realpolitik" if you need further explanation.

Support for democracy is easy. You stop supporting the tyrants and let fair elections take place. If those elections bring to power the Brotherhood that is what the Egyptian people chose.

The inanity of your argument stems from the idea that you think blowback only occurs when you take action. Blowback also happens when you do nothing, as the deadbeat Canadians usually do.

The hijackers did not go after Canada or Switzerland. They went after the US because it was the US that was keeping troops in Saudi Arabia and supporting the tyrants in the Middle East. You do not have to use the military to engage other nations. Commercial relations will do fine and will offer much better returns economically and in good will.

"Fair enough. If you want me to say that Americans ignored the murder of 500K children that is fine. It is still the same thing."

No, sorry, not getting off that easy. You casually lied through your teeth that the US govt "applauded" the deaths of Iraqi children. your new argument is not the same thing at all. Again, you lied through your teeth, liar. Further, it is yet another lie to say the US "ignored" the death of Iraqi children. We had no control over Saddam withholding food and medicine, and we also couldn't let him out of his cage. Perhaps this is too complicated for someone like you.

"But it was Clinton who killed those 500K children, not Saddam."

Yet another lie, you really can't tell the truth, can you? I already pointed out the warehouses full of food and medicine Saddam purposely kept from his own people. He did this largely so they would die and so nitwits like you would point the blame at the US instead of where it really belongs.

"There were no WMDs. Bush lied. End of story and no amount of spin from warmongers and chicken hawks will change it."

Non-sequitur. I believe Che pointed out whenever you get talking shit, which is quite often, you change the subject.

"Some of your analysts claimed that al Qaeda was fighting to depose Gaddafi and to take over the oil producing areas. You might try doing some research."

Yeah, I already know that. I also know Khadaffy deserves to be taken out. It's complicated and that's where people like you start having trouble.

Obama's prosecution of this war, however, is beyond idiotic.

"You stop supporting the tyrants and let fair elections take place."

Oh wow, so "fair elections" will just magically take place any time the US stops supporting tyrants? How'd that work out with Batista in Cuba?

"If those elections bring to power the Brotherhood that is what the Egyptian people chose. "

And it Egypt becomes a massive new jihadi volcano in the Middle East that spreads across the planet,oh well, the Canadians will do jack squat about it. No sweat off their balls, I guess.

"They went after the US because it was the US that was keeping troops in Saudi Arabia and supporting the tyrants in the Middle East."

Right, the US and Britain kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and guards the Middle East shipping lanes, with little help from anyone else, so the Islamofascists are more pissed at us than anyone else. All that says to me is that countries like Canada are cowardly deadbeats who expect the United States to do their fighting for them. Pathetic.

But that is what it did. The government patted itself on the back even though the children were dying and voters did not care. They approved of and cheered the murders because they did not say anything negative against those murders. It was only a few libertarians, lefty activists and religious organizations that spoke out against Clinton's crimes.

Yet another lie, you really can't tell the truth, can you? ....

Nonsense. There are always warehouses of drugs and supplies in countries, even when there are shortages. Supplies come in and get distributed. But they certainly do not get distributed normally when there is a threat of invasion because there are other things that usually take priorities. Of course, the Kurds probably did not get much in the way of Saddam but they had their black market supplies from Turkey to help them deal with their own problems.

Non-sequitur. I believe Che pointed out whenever you get talking shit, which is quite often, you change the subject.

There were no WMDs. Bush said that he had evidence that there were. He used evidence that had been fabricated and was proven to be fabricated but went with it anyway. He used sources that were not credible to spin a narrative that was a clear lie from the beginning. He lied. End of story. So stop apologizing and admit it.

I also know Khadaffy deserves to be taken out. It's complicated and that's where people like you start having trouble.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the US government can take out leaders that it does not like? And how will you respond if Obama's stupidity causes the Libyan government to respond by an attack on American civilians? After all, when you cheer the attack innocent Libyan civilians there isn't much that you can say when the shoe is on the other foot.

Obama's prosecution of this war, however, is beyond idiotic.

Of course it is. Just like Bush's occupations. Now that the country is broke you will find out just how idiotic the militarism was.

Oh wow, so "fair elections" will just magically take place any time the US stops supporting tyrants? How'd that work out with Batista in Cuba?

Egypt has an army. It can ensure that there are elections.

And it Egypt becomes a massive new jihadi volcano in the Middle East that spreads across the planet,oh well, the Canadians will do jack squat about it. No sweat off their balls, I guess.

It is a massive jihadi volcano. The last time I was there a bunch of Greek tourists were attacked and there were armed soldiers everywhere. Egyptians and Saudis were part of the 9/11 attacks. There were no Libyans or Iraqis.

Right, the US and Britain kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and guards the Middle East shipping lanes, with little help from anyone else, so the Islamofascists are more pissed at us than anyone else. All that says to me is that countries like Canada are cowardly deadbeats who expect the United States to do their fighting for them. Pathetic.

I am sure that the Chinese really appreciate it when you waste US tax revenues to help them get more oil. It seems to me that your efforts have been an absolute failure and that the US is even more unsafe today than it was a decade ago. The stupid actions and waste are now creating domestic problems that will not be so easy to overcome. We already hear of poor kids swarming and looting and see how manhole covers, A/C units, utility wires, transformers, etc., are now being stolen by criminals that do a great deal of infrastructure. Who needs terrorists when your own citizens are willing to do the damage to the economy?

I guess that many people will reconsider after the USD collapses but somehow I doubt that you will ever see the light.